Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessments for the relevant periods were provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the demand of differential duty could be sustained on that basis.
Analysis: The assessments could be treated as provisional only if there was an order under Rule 9B authorising provisional clearances and supporting material showing that clearances and duty payments were made on that provisional basis. The records did not establish such an order for the disputed periods. The letter relied on by the Revenue directed provisional treatment only for future RT-12 assessments and did not convert prior clearances into provisional clearances. No bond under Rule 9B was produced, and the price-lists for the relevant period had already been approved. In these circumstances, the tests governing provisional assessment were not satisfied, and the demand based on purported finalisation of provisional assessments could not stand.
Conclusion: The assessments were not shown to be provisional, and the duty demand could not be upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A demand for differential duty on the footing of provisional assessment can be sustained only where there is a clear order under the governing provisional-assessment rule and corresponding material showing provisional clearances and payment of duty on that basis.